Chinese M14 origin theories

The Wizard said:
Would you classify a Mauser C96 Broomhandle pistol on the same level as a M14/M305 receiver? I have seen some very good Chinese made Broomhandle copies made in the 1930's without the benefits of a TDP from Mauser.
Click to expand...

I would not. There was a half century and two world wars between the development of the C96 and the M14. Machine tools and processes advanced significantly in that time. There are a lot of moving parts in the C96 but nothing that requires the amount of dedicated tooling that the M14 would. Also when the Taiyuan arsenal reverse engineered the C96 it was altered and not compatible with licensed versions. A Pratt & Whitney radial is more complex than a Rotax two stroke, but it's unlikely that the workers at P&W could copy the Rotax simply because of advancements in processes and tooling over the years.

1926, the Arsenal at Taiyuan had produced 1500 rifles, 500 Mauser type Broom handle Military Pistols, 300 mortars, mortar shells, hand grenades and three million rounds of ammunition per month with foreign technicians, assisted by American trained Chinese, supervising and training 8000 Chinese workers.
Click to expand...
So while the Chinese broom handle variant was produced, American expertise and assistance was welcomed. I doubt that was that case under chairman Mao when they decided to tinker with the m14.
 
This thread is a funny coincidence to me.
I read OP earlier, then tonight i was searching google, as i have a said USGI stock i wish to id
I asked google : verify m14 stock origins

One of the first links to pop up was this one
https://stricklandwu.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/history-of-the-chinese-m14-cloneszt/
Doesnt mean its valid, but if it is our rifles have a cool history

Edit, they even speak of chinese made ammunition that had british headstamps
 
Last edited:
All of you are now ready to "Google" and "YouTube" .... Peshawar Arms or Bazaar....Get ready for literal "high school shop class" reverse engineering! :wave:

Cheers,
Barney
 
In discussions on the M14 I keep hearing people say that China has the actual/original tooling to forge the M14 receivers (which they supposedly got from the original Springfield Armoury after they shut down), which in turn allows to them to produce the forged receivers, while the modern Springfield only has the capability to cast theirs. This is often cited as the reason for why you would want to use the Norinco M14 receiver as the starting point for a build rather than the Springfield receiver.

Can anyone comment on that?
 
The Wizard said:
If China got a set of REAL M14 engineering drawing, THEY STOLED THEM! Anyone giving or selling a set to the Chinese can and would be prosecuted under United States law (violation of ITAR). Second, the Chinese have a long history of "copying" firearms. Anyone remember the Chinese made "Broomhandles"? As for making firearms, it is amazing what be done with simple machines and hand tools. Check out firearms making in the Pakistan's tribal territory. Some are real POS but other are quite good.
Click to expand...

ITAR came into existence in 1976. Before that, there was NO export control on small arms intellectual property in the USA.

China wa only added to the ITAR tables for small arms and munitions in January 1998, though they were on the list for most other defence commodities since 1976.
 
joe6167 said:
In discussions on the M14 I keep hearing people say that China has the actual/original tooling to forge the M14 receivers (which they supposedly got from the original Springfield Armoury after they shut down), which in turn allows to them to produce the forged receivers, while the modern Springfield only has the capability to cast theirs. This is often cited as the reason for why you would want to use the Norinco M14 receiver as the starting point for a build rather than the Springfield receiver.

Can anyone comment on that?
Click to expand...

Sounds like a bastardization of what really happened, which is that the M14 tooling from Winchester went to Taiwan for them to make their Type 57 copy. Where it probably remains to this day. I'm sure to a lot of westerners Taiwan and China are the same place, but as others have pointed out here China is the last place Taiwan would want to forward firearms technology to.
 
can14 said:
When Allen Lever first started importing Chinese m14 s, he had original sales samples. They were the same as
the usgi m14 rifles that we have now. They had the selector locks and all the selector parts. The stocks were
like the heavy target stocks. These guns are still here somewhere.
Click to expand...

got one of them right here . i compare it with the new ones and what a difference on the finish. the old one is finish is much better than the newer ones
 
joe6167 said:
In discussions on the M14 I keep hearing people say that China has the actual/original tooling to forge the M14 receivers (which they supposedly got from the original Springfield Armoury after they shut down), which in turn allows to them to produce the forged receivers, while the modern Springfield only has the capability to cast theirs. This is often cited as the reason for why you would want to use the Norinco M14 receiver as the starting point for a build rather than the Springfield receiver.

Can anyone comment on that?
Click to expand...

joe6167 said:
In discussions on the M14 I keep hearing people say that China has the actual/original tooling to forge the M14 receivers (which they supposedly got from the original Springfield Armoury after they shut down), which in turn allows to them to produce the forged receivers, while the modern Springfield only has the capability to cast theirs. This is often cited as the reason for why you would want to use the Norinco M14 receiver as the starting point for a build rather than the Springfield receiver.

Can anyone comment on that?
Click to expand...

That is total BS.

For starters, when SA closed (for good) in 1968. M14 production ended in 1965, but SA continued making parts and doing repairs until they closed. During that time, the US was getting into Vietnam and they were on no friendly terms with the PRC.

Much of the SA machinery was gifted to the technical college that now occupies some of the original site. The gauges themselves, etc. were likely put into storage.

The modern SA Inc. has NO LINK to the long-defunct government arsenal. They aren't even in Massachusetts, they are in Genesco Illinois. They build their guns on investment castings made in Montreal that they later machine into a receiver.

The Sa Inc. receivers are as serviceable as any other for all practical purposes. People prefer forged receivers because they are "better". But that extra measure of quality doesn't usually translate into the real world in semi-auto use.
 
Granted, the 1911 is FAR simpler on almost every level than an M14, but consider this:

If you can reverse engineer and make a 1911 in an open air hut in the Philippines using nothing but hand tools (hacksaws, files, etc. - no power tools at all), then I have little trouble believing that a government owned factory in China (and it very much would be a government owned factory, AFAIK, all firearms factories in China are, either directly or indirectly), would have the wherewithal to clone an M14.


Would there be some trial and error before getting it right? Absolutely. But it would be well worth the effort and investment in time and money. Guns are lucrative, and they're also fantastic political trade leverage.
 
I've handled a few AL serial numbered guns - several with the "grinder mark" but also at least 2 without. The 2 without were clearly re-stamped on the heel, and had been modified from their "original format" (nuff said). They were a bit rough and ready, but the ones I saw on the range worked fine. During the time that the Chinese were covertly producing these, you have to remember that it was a different world, there were 2 super powers and China wasn't one of them. The Chinese wanted to avoid publicly antagonizing the US. They wanted to avoid the possibility of receiving a nuclear broadside and since at various times they were facing both the Americans and the Soviets as enemies, they couldn't count on the other super power for support. Starting, or arming, a revolution in the Philippines would have been a great way to weaken the US since much of South Eat Asia was boiling at the time, and the Philippines was essentially a supply and replenishment base for US efforts.
 
joe6167 said:
In discussions on the M14 I keep hearing people say that China has the actual/original tooling to forge the M14 receivers (which they supposedly got from the original Springfield Armoury after they shut down), which in turn allows to them to produce the forged receivers, while the modern Springfield only has the capability to cast theirs. This is often cited as the reason for why you would want to use the Norinco M14 receiver as the starting point for a build rather than the Springfield receiver.

Can anyone comment on that?
Click to expand...

Remember, Taiwan and communist mainland China, both consider themselves Chinese, and here in North America, people who don't know better consider the two names to be one and the same.

The tooling for the M14s were sold by the US government to the Taiwanese Chinese, where they are still made to this day.

The communist mainland Chinese reverse engineered/stole the plans to produce counterfeits which they planned to use to secretly arm and back a revolution in the Philippines against the USA, not originally for commercial sale.

Fast forwards a decade or two and now communist mainland china has a surplus of these rifles and parts on hand. They try to sell them but they're crap.
From what I've read, an American firearms businessman went over there looking to source out a lot of cheaply produced rifles, saw the poor quality and helped the mainland Chinese to bring the quality up enough for sale in the USA.

Then the rifles get banned and now we have them here.

All the while, the Taiwanese Chinese continue to produce legit versions of the M14 for use in their own military.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of these legit versions also found their way to mainland Chinese.

Humans are creative and resourceful if nothing else. Just look at those .45's being made in the jungles of the Philippines and the AK47's being made in huts in Afghanistan. Not to mention other items such as carbon steel Japanese swords being made hundreds of years ago.
 
Last edited:
so the M305s that we're buying today, are they made with the Taiwanese original US tooling, or the reverse-engineered Chinese tooling?

Also... the actions on those hand made Philippine 1911s sound smoother than on my Norinco 1911! I guess the Norinco factory is even worse off than the Philippine jungle huts!
 
the 305s we are getting today are reverse engineered from communist china PERIOD-EVERYTHING ELSE YOU'VE BEEN TOLD IS STRAIGHT BS- take the time to find lee emerson's book on the m14 READ IT- that's the truth- not some word of mouth conjecture- now the shady part of the story is the vn part, as to whether the m14 arrived in china from some usgi dropping it or some marvin ( probably the latter) we don't know- we DO know it was a trw, but the Chinese with their somewhat sloppy copying methods compromised the design somewhat and their quality control leaves something to be desired-
 
Odd Shot said:
The tooling for the M14s were sold by the US government to the Taiwanese Chinese, where they are still made to this day.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that? They've been making the 5.56mm Type 65/86/91 family starting from the mid-70s for a while now.

I mean, our armed forces still use BHPs from Inglis and the Rangers, No.4s from Longbranch, but neither of those have been going concerns for going on 7 decades now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom